Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yarnell-Adams Family

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. there is sufficient consensus that nothing notable is asserted and it consequently falls under CSD A7. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yarnell-Adams Family[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally BLP-prodded, this article is nothing but a genealogical tree of a rather ordinary family. The reference used to contest the BLP prod is the home page of a company owned by a family member. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy" would be appropriate, from what I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, non-notable real person/group. I'm sure all this work -- the graph and everything -- was done in good faith, but this just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - just a bunch of ordinary folks. Very nice ones, I'm sure, but WP does not exist to document the family tree of every family on Earth -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim of notability, which qualifies the article for A7 speedy deletion. Also fails WP:BIO due to lack of reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Ancestry websites such as Ancestry.com and local history books welcome such biographical material about everyone's family who cares to submit such a piece. Portions could be placed on the user page of the editor creating the article. Sounds like a bunch of fine folks who served in the military, got good educations, and worked. But nothing there needing to be included in a general encyclopedia, which is not a directory of everyone who lived. Edison (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.